What would be awesome is if someone launched an AI sandbox where gamers could have access to tons of tools to make their own games (basically Garry's Mod for AI).
What is likely to happen is devs will just use AI to make maps, do voices, and write dialogue.
If you've ever said "what's the point of playing a multiplayer game if I'm not earning anything?"; "they need to release more frequent updates"; "where is the roadmap?"; "The devs just released this game and abandoned it"; or "why did they just send this game out to die?" then you are part of the reason we are facing this future.
Didn't watch the video. And this prediction isn't limited to this game. Anytime a multiplayer game launches, no matter how good the gameplay, gamers eventually all start crying about how the game isn't enough of a live service (even though they'll say they hate live service games).
Lol okay just watched that part. Totally validates what I anticipate.
Prediction: no matter how good the gameplay is, within about two months of launch everyone will start saying "where's the content," "where are the new guns," "what's the point of playing if I'm not earning anything," and "they just sent this game out to die."
It's always fun when someone's comment is so inaccurate it reveals that they fundamentally misunderstand some of the concepts they are talking about.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it had some decent retail success in the first week or so, just based on the IP. But for a game like this, selling a decent number early on isn't enough. Remember that Avengers sold respectably the first few weeks, but still caused massive losses for Square Enix because the game cost tons to develop and keep up. A game like this needs high sales and continued engagement (ie microtransactions). So don't assume the game is a success if it is #1 on ...
Sigh. The issue here is always online. It's fine to oppose both digital games and always online, but you need to make your criticisms of each issue be relevant and make sense. Plenty of always online games also have a physical version, and buying that version doesn't keep the end user from experiencing the issues that almost invariably plague those games.
Lol okay. If we mean "about two decades" or "almost two decades," I'm on board.
So are we shifting the narrative from "anyone who criticizes Palworld is a salty Pokemon fanboy and Nintendo bootlicker" to "anyone who criticizes Palworld is a PlayStation fanboy"?
I wouldn't say they have been bad that long. In the early to mid 2000s before they turned to annualization and then live service they actually released some pretty solid games. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is an iconic stealth game, the Rainbow Six Vegas Games were great, and Far Cry 2 was criminally underrated (if you haven't played it, it came before Far Cry become just another "Ubisoft Formula" collect-a-thon). Heck, whatever your criticisms of the original Assassin's ...
Is this an homage to the 99 rare candies trick near Cinnabar Island?
@dumahim
You prove yourself wrong within your own comment. You are confusing a patch for a PS4 game that makes the game run better on PS5 (Sony has never charged for this) with a PS4 game getting a native release on PS5 (Sony has charged for this new version of the game). A great example to illustrate is Ghost of Tsushima. Sony patched the PS4 version to unlock the framerate, letting it run at 60 fps on PS5, which was. Then they also released a native PS5 version with addit...
Bingo. It's nice that someone else sees the obvious pattern in these scenarios.
Okay, I'll assume good faith and bite.
You're a writer with an established reputation. Let's assume you start hearing that a writer on a newer, smaller site has been writing some articles suspiciously similar to yours. You check a few out and see that they are pretty similar, but you give the benefit of the doubt and think "well, this writer could have had similar sources, maybe even some of the same ones, and my commentary on it was limited and straightfor...
Sigh. Should I assume you are as confused as you are pretending to be and explain? I guess so, even though I'm pretty sure you understand perfectly. I never really understand why people think they seem funnier or that they "own" people by pretending to lack rational capacity.
No, death threats aren't fine. If you take them seriously, report them to whatever platform they were posted on/sent from, and report them to the relevant legal authorities. Just don&...
Step 1: People express legitimate criticism of game.
Step 2: Devs and Gaming Press identify a few random people on Twitter or forums who have sent the devs threats.
Step 3: Devs/Media lump the entire group of people making the legitimate criticism with the few random people making threats and treat them as if they are a single group.
Step 4: Devs avoid addressing the real criticism by denouncing the threats and saying generic statements about how legitimate criticis...
Except for you repeating the lie about charging for patches, I agree with your comment. Kind of crazy that PS5 is selling better now than PS4 did at times when PS4 had a confirmed roster of incoming, single player focused exclusives, while the future for PS5 games is hazy at best. We heard so much about the switch to live service and the big investment in Bungie in order to gain their expertise in making those, but now Bungie can't even seem to manage their own live service game, and it&#...
Gosh I miss the early days of gaming podcasts in the mid/late 2000s. I was in high school and had not yet ever been in a position to afford all games or consoles that I wanted, and the game journalists and critics at that time had such a deep knowledge of games from basically the NES on.
Now when I read or hear a gaming journalist/influencer/YouTuber it's usually patently obvious that they have pretty limited knowledge of games as a whole. Frequently, they seem to have ...
And the idiot gamers who say they hate them but instantly attack any multiplayer game that isn't run as a live service by saying the devs "sent it out to die" or "abandoned" it.
"The only ppl that seem to have a problem with these games are purists and elitists."
This is the problem. For every person who recognizes how the live service model has degraded the quality of multiplayer games (this is without even getting to how it has even damaged some singleplayer games now) there are probably 100 people who are "gamers" who spend 90% of their time gaming playing live service games and who aren't even aware they are controversia...